Rogers v. County of Los Angeles
198 Cal. App. 4th 480
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Rogers worked for the County for over 36 years and held a high-level personnel/HR role in the executive office.
- She began a medical CFRA leave on April 3, 2006, with leave approved under the County’s disability program.
- Hamai became executive officer in April 2006 and reorganized the office, creating a broader admin deputy role and shifting reporting lines.
- In May 2006 Hamai decided to replace Rogers with a new personnel officer, aiming for an independent, outsider perspective; the decision was a business choice with no performance-based concerns about Rogers.
- Rogers returned on August 14, 2006, learned of an ISD transfer effective August 21, 2006, and retired that same day; she contended the transfer was noncomparable and retaliatory.
- The trial court later reversed on appeal, and the County won on reconsideration of CFRA claims; the appellate court ultimately reversed the jury verdict and remanded for judgment for the County.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CFRA reinstatement right applies if employee does not return after 12 weeks. | Rogers argues reinstatement protection extends beyond the 12 weeks. | County contends reinstatement ends with 12-week period if employee does not return. | Interference claim barred; reinstatement right ends after 12 weeks. |
| Whether the transfer to ISD constitutes an adverse employment action tied to CFRA leave. | Rogers alleges the transfer was prompted by her CFRA leave. | County shows a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason unrelated to CFRA leave. | No causally linked adverse action established; retaliation claim fails. |
| Whether the trial evidence supports the retaliation verdict even if interference failed. | Jury could infer retaliation from the timing of leave and transfer. | Evidence shows independent organizational reasons; no causal link proven. | Without a causal link, retaliation verdict cannot stand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Neisendorf v. Levi Strauss & Co., 143 Cal.App.4th 509 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (reinstatement right limited to 12-week period under CFRA/FMLA)
- Perez v. Grajales, 169 Cal.App.4th 580 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (equitable estoppel not preserved at trial or on appeal)
- Spangler v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines, 278 F.3d 847 (8th Cir. 2002) (FMLA leave is 12 weeks; employer may terminate after period if unable to return)
- Hatchett v. Philander Smith College, 251 F.3d 670 (8th Cir. 2001) (no restoration where employee cannot resume essential functions)
- Reynolds v. Phillips & Temro Industries, Inc., 195 F.3d 411 (8th Cir. 1999) (no violation when employee cannot return after leave)